Remediation as a Remedy

Over the past 40 years (roughly the period of my work in developmental mathematics), our approaches have shared one focus — we tend to ‘fix’ (provide what is needed) in our students by focusing on small (or even smallest) parts of the problem.  Algebra, in this approach, means that we study some properties of numbers … simplify expressions … solve equations … translate word problems … graph equations … and so on.  Does this approach result in any significant improvements for our students?

Earlier today, I was searching for some information and ideas on retention — especially of minority students.  In the process, I encountered a blog by Mike Rose at  http://mikerosebooks.blogspot.com/   … in a  post, Mike says:

Such problems of status and institutional structure interact with flawed beliefs about cognition and motivation that run throughout basic-skills instruction. One of those flawed beliefs is that the way to remedy a problem is to focus on the smallest units of the problem—in the case of writing, it would be rules of grammar, often treated out of context in a workbook or in an entire course focused only on the sentence. In such settings, students don’t get to work with language in a way consonant with the intellectual and rhetorical demands of the writing they will have to do in college. Another false belief is that underprepared students’ motivation and self-esteem will be hurt by a more-challenging curriculum. That is a one-dimensional, not to mention patronizing, understanding of motivation. There’s no scientific basis for such beliefs, but they persist.  (see http://mikerosebooks.blogspot.com/2010/08/smithsonian-of-basic-skills.html)

 As you might guess by the content, Mike Rose is talking specifically about developmental writing classes.  However, I am intrigued by this analysis — he is suggesting that this ‘small unit’ approach to remediation actually conflicts with meeting the goals of remediation (as in being ready).  In mathematics, we tend to focus even more on small units of learning (iin recent years); when done to the extreme, we see modular learning.  However, I encourage you to not make the mistake of thinking that non-modular courses avoid this ‘small unit’ problem — the small unit problem is dealing with fairly trivial details to the extent of missing the basic value; we can solve equations … but we are unable to communicate and reason algebraically.

This ‘small unit’ problem is part of what has given “algebra” a bad reputation.  If we fail to correct our approach, we will find other domains taking over the field — like statistis.  Statistics is fine, and has a purpose.  However, I believe that algebra has much to offer as a domain to help students become ‘ready’ for success in college and in life.  The concepts of algebra, and our modes of expression, would serve students well — if we focus on those fundamental goals, and not the smallest units.

I hope that you will share my journey of making remediation into a remedy for our students, so our work provides what students need to be ready.
Join Dev Math Revival on Facebook:

1 Comment

• 

  By Peter Brown, February 10, 2012 @ 8:48 am

  Jack, I find this dead on target. It is not by any means all that difficult to show the beauty of the forest. If the main focus is to always look at an individual tree, often the beauty is never seen, or ‘hidden’ until you are a math major.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.